Revenue is in appeal agitating action of learned CIT(A) in allowing claim of deduction under s. 80HHC r/w s. 115JB. learned Departmental Representative pointed out that order of learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts and circumstances of case. He erred in holding that there are no radical changes between ss. 115J and 115JA on one hand and s. 115JB on other. He erred in holding that assessee is eligible for claim of deduction under s. 80HHC from profits computed under provisions of s. 115JB, overlooking fact that in Expln. (iv) to s. 115JB, reference is made to profits eligible for deduction under s. 80HHC and no reference is made to book profits. He erred in not observing that since assessee had not considered DEPB claim for computing deduction under s. 80HHC as per amended provision, claim made is erroneous on this count also. He erred in directing that decisions of Kerala High Court CIT vs. G.T.N. Textiles Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (Ker) 185 and of Tribunal, Mumbai in Dy. CIT vs. Govind Rubber (P) Ltd. (2004) 82 TTJ (Mumbai) 615: (2004) 89 ITD 457 (Mumbai) have to be followed although those decisions have been rendered in context of s. 115J. He overlooked fact that there is specific definition provided for what and how "profits and business" are to be computed under s. 80HHC. He erred in allowing computation of book profit as per Companies Act to arrive at eligible profits of business for deduction under s. 80HHC for purpose of reducing this while computing income under s. 115JB. He also submitted that decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court and decision of Mumbai Tribunal Dy. CIT vs. Govind Rubber (P) Ltd. (supra) supported case of AO. Learned counsel for assessee, at outset, submitted that issue is now squarely settled by Tribunal, Mumbai Special Bench in Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2007) 108 TTJ (Mumbai)(SB) 105: (2007) 292 ITR 144 (Mumbai)(SB)(AT) delivered on 14th March, 2007. He pointed out that confusion in mind of Revenue as stated above has been set at rest by learned CIT(A) in his order as observed in his order at para 1.3 which exactly was brought on record by Special Bench decision. Therefore, he pointed out that decisions of Hon ble Kerala High Court and Tribunal Bench of Mumbai which has been incorporated in said decision, eligible profits remain for computation of export business deduction under s. 80HHC which t h e assessee had claimed in returns so filed before AO. He fully supported order of learned CIT(A). We have heard rival contentions and on our careful perusal of facts and circumstances, we are inclined to hold that issue agitated by Revenue before us stands squarely covered by decision of Tribunal, Special Bench insofar as Special Bench covered case of Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (supra) wherein assessment year involved was 2003-04 as applicable to assessee before us and had also noted applicability of s. 115JB which discussion is out of contention as was agitated before Special Bench. deduction under s. 80HHC in MAT scheme is from taxable income, which is otherwise adjusted book profit. If no deduction is available to assessee, gross total income itself is taxable income of assessee. MAT scheme does not provide for deductions. Therefore, interpretation is that adjusted book profit of company itself is gross total income of that assessee company. deduction under s. 80HHC is in that way given out of gross total income in case falling under MAT. This in turn means that section 80HHC should be computed on adjusted book profit. Secs. 115J, 115JA and 115JB come into operation, as regular profits have been substituted by book profit. Once substitution is over, there is no way to go back to normal computation process of statutory profit, which has already been overwhelmed by ss. 115J, 115JA and 115JB. Therefore, deduction under s. 80HHC in case of MAT assessment is to be worked out on basis of adjusted book profit and not on basis of profit computed under regular provisions of law applicable to computation of profits and gains of business or profession. Therefore, in our considered view, we are of opinion that learned CIT(A) dealt with issue on hand in apt manner confirming to facts as has been dealt with by Special Bench holding issue in favour of assessee which we are inclined to uphold in order of learned CIT(A). Revenue has not put forth any controverting material in support thereof. In result appeal of Revenue is dismissed. *** Income-tax Officer, Ward-11(1) v. Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co. (P) Ltd